Public Accounts Committee on Sept. 6th, 2007

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

That's not a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Yours is not a point of order either.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Laforest.

I'm going to restrict interventions to one minute.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Chair, with regard to Mr. Williams' point of order, I agree with Ms. Jennings that it is not moot. On the contrary, it is necessary. The material that the new committee will have at its disposal after prorogation will not be as fresh as it is today. So it is absolutely necessary for the committee to pass this motion today so that the situation can be fully examined. We know how many times this has led us to other discoveries. I think that Mr. Wrzesnewskyj has put his finger on something very important and that the motion must be passed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay, I'm going to allow Mr. Wrzesnewskyj 30 seconds or a minute to wrap up, and then I'm going to ask if he has unanimous consent.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

At the start of today's meeting, I was quite encouraged by Mr. Sweet's motion. It appeared that the Conservative members had turned over a leaf. We'd seen their stonewalling throughout the winter and spring, attempting to prevent witnesses from coming forward before this committee--

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair--

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We have a point of order from Mr. Poilievre.

Please, gentlemen, lady, we're talking about whether he has unanimous consent. I don't think we have to get into a debate on the history of the workings on this particular issue.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

To conclude, since I am on a point of order, we unanimously agreed to pass Mr. Sweet's motion, and a component of that motion was that it be presented before Parliament. We didn't get into a big discussion about prorogation and whether in fact it might be a moot motion. I'd like them to apply the same logic to this particular motion and for the Conservatives to agree to unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We have heard the discussion. Mr. Wrzesnewskyj has made a motion. As everyone knows, it doesn't proceed any further unless he gets unanimous consent. Does Mr. Wrzesnewskyj have unanimous consent to deal with this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

He does not have unanimous consent.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I didn't deny it.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I just asked if anyone opposes it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Does anyone oppose providing Mr. Wrzesnewskyj with unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I do not see anyone opposed to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

The motion is on the table. Do you want to speak further to your motion?

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

No. I think everything that's required has been said. I was quite concerned to find out that there may be evidence out there, or witnesses that would have information that runs contrary to former Commissioner Zaccardelli's statements before this committee under oath.

I would request also that this be a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I'm going to hear from Mr. Poilievre and Mr. Christopherson, but before I do that, I want to point out that you've been very patient, Assistant Commissioner Spice, retired, and Assistant Commissioner Conlin. You are excused if you want to leave. You're probably not as interested in this issue as other things in life.

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Yes, Chair, I'm prepared to support this motion. I know that Mr. Wrzesnewskyj is moving it for publicity purposes, because he knows we're not going to call these members before the prorogation occurs, but regardless, we can support it now. It will die with prorogation, but it can be revived when we return to the House of Commons.

I do appreciate the way we've set up these couple of days of hearings, though. I'd like to thank you for that. I think we're breaking it down into two parts. One part is what went wrong, and of course we're going to be hearing about that from the previous minister who was in charge when that occurred, and we'll be hearing about the future and how we can get it right from the new minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Williams, you have a comment.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was a little disturbed at what Mr. Wrzesnewskyj was saying about why he wanted these witnesses to come forward to contradict the testimony of the former Commissioner of the RCMP. These are serious allegations that have not been upheld by substance laid before the committee by Mr. Wrzesnewskyj. He just wants to bring people in to hopefully verify what he would want to achieve, which is to demonstrate that some statements before this commission may or may not be upheld as being factual or otherwise.

Mr. Chairman, these are serious issues and they should be dealt with either at the steering committee or in camera, long before we debate these at this point in time unfounded allegations in public, because we should take our positions very seriously. We should not be besmirching people's reputations in public just because we happen to be a parliamentary committee.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, while I'm the first to uphold Parliament's right to get to the truth, the process that we are starting down, Mr. Chairman, if we do all this in public with people's reputations, bothers me greatly. And I'm the first to agree with Mr.Wrzesnewskyj; there's some testimony before this committee that has been troubling to me, and we may discuss that at some other time. But the point is, if we are to bring these witnesses forward, I want to have an in camera discussion as to how we're going to handle this so that we do not mess around with people's reputations willy-nilly just because we have the authority to do so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Ms. Jennings, and then I'm going to put the question.

One minute, Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I appreciate what Mr. Williams has had to say. I have experienced the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in a previous legislature, which studied the Auditor General's report into the sponsorship program. The committee was under Mr. Williams' chairmanship. He has personal experience, as do I, as a member of that committee, as to how names of potential witnesses were brought forth in public and their reputations besmirched in discussions in public hearings. Unfortunately, it took a--

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.